Network Transport vs. CD Transport


So I decided to conduct an experiment. I pulled the old Marantz cd player circa 1999, around $400 retail, from storage along with few CDs. Using a coax digital cable with a $4.97 rca to bnc adapter from amazon, I sat down to listen. I played the CD, the ripped version (AIFF) of that CD, and a Qobuz redbook version thru my zmac Mini. Long story short...the reason why I did it was because there is something missing in the Mac Mini sound quality and I got tired of trying to figure out what the heck is going on. 
Anyways, that old cd player used as a transport into the Qutest DAC sounds considerably better  than the Mac Mini that right now I will need a few days break before I can can listen to the Mac again. I figured (assumed) that a dedicated network transport will pretty much better the Mac Mini and be comparable or better than what I heard with Marantz player as transport. Eyeing Auralic G1, Lumin D2 and Lumin U1 Mini as candidates (I need wifi capability), will any of these be comparable or better than let’s say a decent CD transport feeding the Chord Qutest? For example a Cambridge CXC, or a used high end player?
I can go back to spinning CDs, but figured I don’t want to give up on streaming just yet.
What are your thoughts - Auralic G1, Lumin D2, Lumin U1 Mini, or a dedicated CD transport for high quality playback. Forget convenience, let’s talk purely sound quality...thanks!

System:
Rogue RP-1, Rogue ST-100, Martin Logan Montis, Chord Qutest dac. 
audphile1

Showing 1 response by p05129

Everybody on this thread uses usb which is flawed. If you get a quality network dac, there is no reason for a music server. All these music servers are computers with hacks to try improving usb. Sure, if you have to use usb, then go for it and keep trying all the tricks to make it better and then spend the $10k that some of these servers are getting so they can try to optimize the USB port.
For a dozen years now, it’s been proven that ripped music sounds better than played they a cd player. It doesn’t have to be ripped to cd, it can be ripped to the slowest hdd out there, there is no difference in sound in ssd or hdd.
I laugh when I read the headlines about the 256G ssd in the Aurender for caching or the review of the Wolf music server, wolf claims its ssd can read 3.5G per second. Big f&$&ing deal!
How much cache do you really need when a song is 50-100M. Do you want to cache 2500 songs? For the Wolf, do you want to read 35 songs a second? What are you going to do with all this songs? If you think ssd cache is going to help in streaming (remember all data has to be fetched into ram before going out they usb) or you need to read 5 albums each second, go for it